Search
Who's new
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 12 guests online.
Frontpage FeedActive Posters
Users posting in the last 30 days:
- Praveenben - 2 posts
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
-
Anonymous (not verified):
-
Sam O'neal (not verified):
-
Maria Clark (not verified):
-
Mack Johns (not verified):
-
cheap tiffany jewelry (not verified):
-
Andrea@Christianson (not verified):
-
yashima283 (not verified):
-
yashima283 (not verified):
-
PLD (not verified):
-
Waterloo Airport Limo (not verified):
Recent Trackbacks
Popular Posts
- The Blogosphere: A Kosmos
- Workers: The Faceless, Interchangeable Cog
- Baby Steps or Cold Turkey
- Public Goods, Public Bads, and NASA
- Political Child Abuse
- Tell Me What to Do!
- Lessons from the Second City
- Economic Puzzle Involving Stock Ownership (Part II)
- Pop Culture Individualism
- Hope vs. Belief (Part II)
- Build Applications, Not Infrastructure
- May Day 2006: A Day of Remembrance
- The Hanover Street Shoe-Shine Boys
- Will the AMA Vote Against Self-Interest If I Become A Member?
- How to Combat Economic Ignorance: A Proposition
- Toward a Fallibilist Synthesis
- The Other Vouchers
- Strange Omissions
Grunt work?
Either you have a pretty wide definition of "grunt work", or it simply isn't true that the vast majority of jobs in the US are grunt work now, let alone that they always will be "grunt work".
And manufacturing jobs, esp. decades ago when more people working in manufacturing, might reasonably be called grunt work, esp. by your expansive definition (which includes white color jobs).
If the jobs that we are doing, and will be doing are "grunt work" then grunt work is just fine. Consider that real total compensation has increased over time while work conditions have improved.